Packaging of PlayOnLinux
jkonecny at redhat.com
Thu Oct 15 14:31:10 UTC 2015
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 08:46 -0500, Pete Travis wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 12:55 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera at redhat.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > Dne 14.10.2015 v 16:50 Bastien Nocera napsal(a):
> > > > > If the application cannot work without downloading anything,
> > > > > or being
> > > > > supplied
> > > > > third-party (sometimes proprietary) applications, then it's
> > > > > closer to an
> > > > > emulator than a front-end that's generally useful.
> > > > The guidelines speaks about *dependencies*.
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_wh
> > > > ich_are_not_useful_without_external_bits
> > > >
> > > > I think that the idea behind this wording was "runtime
> > > > dependencies". To deny
> > > > application which can not even run without
> > > > those proprietary deps.
> > > > PlayOnLinux is mainly for games, but you can run any Windows
> > > > program using
> > > > that. Even Gimp or Firefox (I could not
> > > > remember program which does not have native linux version and
> > > > is free).
> > > > So it may not be useful for you, but it can be useful for
> > > > somebody else.
> > > >
> > > > For me PlayOnLinux is much closer to virt-manager.
> > > >
> > > > > And emulators aren't allowed in Fedora.
> > > > What?
> > > > You mean like Wine, all those terminal emulators, QEMU,
> > > > atari++, hercules,
> > > > fuse-emulator and lots of others?
> > > The ones listed here:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:SoftwareTypes?rd=Licensi
> > > ng/SoftwareTypes
> > Wel the reason is not "because they are emulators" but "If it
> > requires
> > ROMs (or image files in any format) of copyrighted or patented
> > material to be useful (and the owners of those copyrights and
> > patents
> > have not given their express written permission), then it's not
> > permitted. " ... so "emulators aren't allowed is not what the
> > guidelines say" (the wording is a bit odd though).
> > As for PlayOnLinux its nothing more than a WINE frontend. So there
> > shouldn't be anything wrong with packing it. You can use it it run
> > free / freeware windows apps or windows apps (games) that you
> > actually
> > bought and therefore you do not violate anyone's copyright by using
> > them.
> My understanding - which is welcome to correction - is that the WINE
> community, and presumably therefore utilities like PlayOnLinux, rely
> using specific versions of wine, often with specific patch sets, for
> each application or game. Many of these patches never make it
> because they are not applicable in the broader sense. That's rather
> complicated stuff, and PlayOnLinux solves the problem by defining
> versions and patches and bundling them up for the user.
> The greater feasibility question IMO is whether it is even possible
> PlayOnLinux to be effective when using system wine, and if not,
> the package can be built in a guidelines-compliant way when it
> and patches this way.
I'm using on most of my wine prefixes only system wine. It's much
better than specific program versions for me.
> Jirka, have you put together a spec yet, as a
> proof of concept?
Sorry I haven't created the spec now. I will create one and we will
Thank you all for responses,
More information about the devel